Matting a 16x20 Inkjet Print, To Reveal or Not?

[Peter York]

Hi all,

I'm currently putting together an order for 24x28 frames to show off some 16x20 inkjet prints. This will be my first frame order and it has taken a while to search the forums for information on frame sizes, center versus off-center mounting/matting, spacing for a signature, glass versus acrylic glazing, etc. With the vast amount of posts and helpful info on this forum I believe I have figured out all issues except one, and I want to solicit your advice.

These are 16x20 prints, printed on 17x22 paper that will be taped rather than adhesive- or dry-mounted. Ideally I would like a 3/8" reveal (a 3/8" space between the edge of the print and the edge of the window mat) around the top and sides of the image, slightly more on the bottom for the signature. However a 3/8" reveal for 17x22 paper leaves only 1/8" of paper for the window mat to cover on each side. As I understand it, the overmat helps keep the print flat when taped, and I'm concerned that 1/8" is simply too short.

I suppose I have many options, from reducing the reveal to 1/4", to eliminating it altogether, to reducing the print size by about 1/2", to using adhesive to mount the print or having it dry-mounted.

Do any of you have any suggestions/preferences? I figure this question is not too esoteric since many of you are using those snazzy 17" printers to make even snazzier 16x20 prints.

Any and all comments are appreciated. Thanks,

[Tyler Boley]

it should work. You'll have to be right on in your placements, and the complete sandwich can't allow the matte to drift any from the backing piece the print is taped to... I do the same, but I have a bit more paper underneath the matte all around. Have never had a problem.

[Nathan Potter]

I have done this and it is often OK, but not always. Admittedly I live in an extremely humid environment and it has an effect on the print actually expanding and contracting. Originally I taped the the two upper corners but now use archival tape (about 1 inch wide on top and bottom at center) that reduces the wrinkling of the print under the mat. I now also use double thckness (8 ply) mats and leave a 1/4 inch border all around between print and mat bevel. This all with Hannemulhe 310 GSM paper which is quite thick. Still have some un- flatness problems where the print touches the acrylic glazing but all in all not too bad.

I should consider adhesive mounting but out taking images is more fun.

Nate Potter, Austin TX.

[Peter York]

Thanks Tyler and Nathan! I think I will go for a 1/4" reveal per Nathan's comments. I'm not too experienced with framing, and I suspect getting everything lined up with only 1/8" of overlap could be tricky. The matting will be 8-ply, FWIW.

Best,

[Lenny Eiger]

You may have a 4800 sized printer. If you do, nevermind. I don't want to tell you to go out and spend a lot of money.

However, its better to have 2-3 inches all around an edge. All the conservators I've spoken to say that when paper has trouble from age, foxing, etc., that most of the time it comes in from the edge. If they have a lot of edge and can trim a little off without getting near the image they appreciate it.

I like 3/8 if I can spare it...

Good luck,

Lenny

[Peter York]

Thanks Lenny! For now I'm locked into an Epson 3880, so 17" is my maximum width. I will upgrade to a wider-version HP as soon as I can (and dedicate the 17" to piezography). Your comment raises one additional issue I have not considered. I'll migrate to 2-3 inches of border on a 16x20 as soon as I can. And after this round of 1/4" reveal, I'll try the 3/8".

Best,

[Vaughn]

I use the same size (24X28) frame for 16x20 prints...though I made darkroom prints and the image area was usually a touch over 15x19. I preferred a half-inch revel on top and sides and a 3/4 inch revel on the bottom. Print trimmed to image area and dry-mounted. Signature on the matboard directly below the print. A bit of fussy work, but a very clean presentation. And the hole cut in the mat was a touch over 16x20 -- which I could trim to 16x20 for smaller prints! Waste not, want not...

But the edges of an inkjet print are pretty clean, so trimming is not needed as I found with the way I printed silver gelatin. I would consider just making the prints a little smaller if you need more paper covered by the window.

A snap shot of a framed piece as described above:
(oh well, not easy to see all of the window/revel at the bottom, sorry)

[neil poulsen]

I have a hunch that you are getting good advice from Lenny.

For me, it's a balance between having corner tabs large enough that won't let the print slip, and making a print small enough that the corner tabs won't show.

[Peter York]

Thanks Neil and Vaughn! Vaughn, I saw this print in a previous post, and it really helped me decide that I want a reveal. I'm going to plan on a 1/4" reveal with a full 16x20 image area. If this is unsightly, I can knock back the image area by a bit.

In your experience is their any ethical issue in claiming that a print is 16x20 when in actuality it is a bit smaller?

[John Rodriguez]

When I print on 17x22 I leave a minimum of 1" on each edge, resulting in a 1/2 reveal. I print 95% of everything to one of 4 ratios - 2x3, 5x7, 3x4 or 4x5, stretching an image to fit the closest ratio. I picked this up in a Charles Cramer workshop and it allows you to re-use mats easily. For 17x22 prints that works out to 13.3x20, 14.29x20, 15x20 and 15x18.75 respectively.

I'm hoping 30x24 sheets become more popular as I much prefer dealing with prints flat out of the printer then roll paper and I'd have more room at the edges. Unfortunately there's not much out there for photo papers outside of Epson Exhibition Fibre.